dizzy

If it says it, it must be true? My mama didn't raise me like that! Go to the source (quoted at the bottom) and see for yourself. As per smallc's and my post above, the data is old here (I actually can't even find the specific 'reference'). I provided more current sources.

You're right, my response was not apropos to your statement. A couple of notes about your link: 1. You quoted a website with the stated goal of uniting our continent democratically by helping Canada's provinces join the USA! I didn't realize such a movement was afoot but this wouldn't strike me as the most reliable source. Also,its source reference quotes a website (for a think tank I've never heard of) but not a specific document. I passed my 5 minute tolerance there (realizing that most of their research was based on 1990s and early 2000s data) before searching elsewhere. Before I left, I did find a report based on OECD info that Americans spend more than double their private disposable income (after government and employer contributions) on health care than does canada or european countries. http://www.csls.ca/reports/csls2009-11.pdf 2. Searching in other sites, I found these: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/01/taxes_and_dispo.html http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/June2009/09/c4320.html Which show that the average worker's diposable income is presently the same and that a trend since 2005 shows that canadian disposable income has doubled the US and continued to outpace. Back to the focus of this thread, none of this explains the very high cost of healthcare in the US. Overutilization does.

I hadn't questioned the income comparison, but now that you ask... I just did a quick wiki and found household median incomes between the US (2007 data) and Canada (2005 data) at USD50,233 and USD50,111 respectively...

My perspective is to not make summary statements about either system but to look at what aspects are working well in each. No one 'beats' cancer. 5 yr survival rates are the best measure we have of the healthcare system's ability to diagnose and resolve chronic illness. I don't think our rates are bad. But, They are higher in the US. I want them improved. Early detection technology is a key to this in the US, Japan and France. Yeah, I've seen more than my share of too chunky people here but, in fact, we're generally healthier. Obesity rates are less than half of those in the US. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity I also mentioned violent crime and should add car accidents as factors in the US numbers. The impact of poverty is softened here in part through health care but also through income security programs and public education (which facilitates less multi-generational poverty). I do agree the healthcare is a factor, but so are many other things.

I'm not sure I want to get in the middle of the shell game that you two are playing, but since I challenged wyly on the life expectancy thing, I want to also interject on a couple of your points. The comparison between US and Canadian per capita spending is made in US dollars and adjusted for purchasing power parities. It is about USD7200 per capita in the US vs USD3800 in Canada. Further, Americans actually use their system a lot less than Canadians, so if the comparison was made on a per 'hit' basis as opposed to per person, the disparity would actually be much greater. Second, I'm sure you know that disposible income is a reflection of money after taxes. Considering that we pay for our healthcare in our taxes, personal spending on healthcare in the US would have to be subtracted from disposable income to make the comparison apples to apples. I usually include energy costs in all cross-national income comparisons too, as it's a necessary expense for which there is not a capital investment (unlike a house). All of these things considered, when I did Quebec to NYC and Toronto to San Fransisco comparisons (at different times over the past 10 yrs when different gigs came up for my girlfriend and me) I actually found that I would actually have a little less free change at the same income level. Mind you, those were comparisons of places where I had opportunities/wanted to live. I'm sure places like montana or texas are much more favourable on these fronts. I'm also not saying that there aren't great things about the american healthcare system, just that you won't find them in the financial arena.

I'm not talking about life expectancy. I'm talking about survival rates from chronic illness, like cancer. The US survival rates are much higher than in Canada or Europe, which I believe is attributable to early detection. It's something they do better and I'd like to learn from the best in each system. It's true that canadians don't go to the doctor enough, but 33% of men and 20% of women in the US don't even have a GP, so I don't think that this has anything to do with the higher survival rates in the US. It's not enough to keep falling back to the life expectancy. We live longer because we are generally a healthier people. This can not be attributed to medicare alone. There are a lot of factors behind this including poverty, violent crime, and nutritional habits.

As such, health care systems should be judged by their elements rather than with broad brush statements. There are a lot of things that work well in the 'canadian' system. I quote canadian because, having spent most of my life in toronto but the last 10 yrs in quebec, I'd note some big differences, but those aren't my point in this post. Overall, I'm less concerned about waiting times for non-essential procedures in Canada because, for the large part, doctors tend to compensate by putting patients in the line earlier, thus getting them to their procedure at about the time when its needed. My mother has had two knee replacements, physio, work on her tear ducts and a host of other non essentials that she received in a timely manner and with quality in-home follow up care. I did have some trouble getting an FP after moving to Quebec because I was anglo. Solution: Learn to speak french (however poorly) and receive service in my second language. Problem solved. I actually have an anglo doctor now, but I'll generally get into whichever line will get me served first. Within the french lineup, I've had doctors, nutritionists, etc. who have gone to incredible lengths to accommodate me, even attempting to serve me in english to the best of their linguistic ability. The real area needing improvement in this country, and where we should look to the US as a world leader, is in the area of early detection. When looking at their higher recovery rates with severe chronic illnesses, much of the victory lays here. Otherwise, at similar points of intervention, patients have similar outcomes in both countries. Of course, early detection comes at a cost. It is one of the reasons behind the high cost of care in the US and a part of the overutilization cycle. What I don't want to see in this country is people getting wheeled in for invasive procedures to correct things that could first be addressed by changing behaviour. Nor do I want a poorly regulated private healthcare system, where stakeholders' financial interests favour intervention (doctors with shares in labs, hospitals, etc). But, I do want those machines in greater numbers and I want people's access at that level improved! We're starting to see this idea gaining ground. In Toronto, same day breast cancer detection is now available. In quebec it's been facilitated more through private sector solutions. I'd love to hear what's happening in other provinces. I'm a photographer and count many americans in my trade as colleagues and friends. Most of them are self-employed and, despite having coverage and making good coin ($250k+/yr), they simply can not afford the kind of comprehensive care that we get. Most take catastrophic coverage and, with a deductable that ranges in the thousands, can only get medical care if something big in the machine breaks. Other than one annual, trips to the doctor and specialists are not covered. Out-of-jurisdiction care (such as another state) is not covered. Even those with full insurance are limited to smaller pools of expertise and a growing list of deinsured services (a list that sometimes grows as people become ill with them i.e. you're covered until you need it). Yet, technically, according to the american stats, these people are covered because they have some form of insurance. So, when I say two-tiered care I am not advocating for something like this but rather for systems like exist in France, Germany, Switzerland. Canada is largely a single payer system, so most of the participants are already private sector entities. Changing the nature of the system can happen without damaging the spirit of the medicare. And we need to slay the sacred cow - The Canada Health Act.

With all respect, your response is a bit rhetorical. Two tier is merely a concept, the application of which can mean anything from what we currently have (considering the private insurance realm of dental and drug care) to completely separate systems. It's true that Canadians live longer, have lower infant mortality rates, etc. than our american friends. But part of this reality is reflective of forces outside of the medicare system, such as the higher levels of extreme poverty and poor nutritional behaviour in the US. Besides, life expectancy is only one marker. What lessons are there, if any to learn from good systems like those in France, Germany? Or from the NHS/private approach in the UK? FTR I'm not wealthy, I'm middle class. I'm comfortable enough to be able to afford the $750 for a next day MRI in quebec if I needed one. I'm also aware that the decision to do so would move someone up the line in the public system. As a parallel, there are some who've argued that the existence of private schools weakens the public school system. But there's no evidence of this within the Canadian experience.

This is great stuff for your election campaign, but it doesn't change the law. Omar was born here. He is a canadian citizen. I don't like this family, either. I do care about maintaining the principles that make our democracy work.

I know it's unpopular to say this in forum world, but I honestly don't have a strong counter argument to yours. Still, I remain unconvinced that he is a war criminal. The crimes against humanity and war crimes act has three provisions, one of which might be applicable: “crime against humanity” « crime contre l’humanité » N/A. Applies to crimes committed against civilian populations. “genocide” « génocide » N/A for obvious reasons. “war crime” « crime de guerre » “war crime” means an act or omission committed during an armed conflict that, at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes a war crime according to customary international law or conventional international law applicable to armed conflicts, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission. source: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-45.9/FullText.html Does this last provision apply? If so, how in a Canadian context, other than to adopt the 'enemy combatant' legal position?

So you don't think the convention governing child soldiers applies? I'm not finding a precedent, other than the US enemy combatant position, to use for reference.

Unfortunately, the discrepancies are not slight. They will determine whether or not he was the only one capable of throwing the grenade. I'm still unsure of what crime he should be charged with, though. Having been to afghanistan six times on behalf of the canadian forces (i'm a civilian, btw), I do believe frm my own eyes that we, NATO, are generally the good guys in this battle. But, this is a war theater and Khadr did nothing at his worst other than kill a member of an invading force. In the most respectable terms, that is the nature of war.

I do think that the heat of war will naturally effect memory. But an unfortunate requirment of jurisprudence is the ability to prove guilt without a reasonable doubt. What, exactly, is he guilty of? ANd how do you prove it? I think the khadr family are shits. I think his mom needs to pay for what her husband escaped through death - accountability for being a bad parent. But, with the geneva and international conventions on child soldiers considered, khadr junior should be a free man in need of rehabilitation. If he engaged in a crime that violates international conventions (like genocide), then I'm happy to see him fry, but there is no publicly available evidence of this.

Yup, there's more money for docs in the US. Which is also part of the reason why canadian provinces haven't invested more in our healthcare system. It's a sad but true reality that, when the provincial systems cannot provide, canadians are sent to the US to get care. These numbers are statistically quite small (much smaller than the numbers of US medical tourists who head to places like canada, mexico, india and, yikes, arch-enemy cuba) but they do exist. The rationale for many provinces is that sending overflow to the US is cheaper than the cost of training and deploying doctors domestically. As a consequence, what's also kind of universally sad is that our publicly-funded system allows me better access to the best US facilities than what exists for average americans. Go figure. I support the notion of two-tier healthcare. And, I admit that healthcare is an untouchable in Canada. Governments are afraid to engage in options analysis because it would mean their end. It's our sacred cow, not unlike defense and security spending in the US. Canadians need to bone up and acknowledge that the system that served us well for the last 40 yrs is no longer sustainable. In terms of quality healthcare, I do not question that the US does early detection better. But that's pretty much all. Despite this, Canadians have less fatty, healthier, longer lives. The american system overprescribes and overutilizes, creating cost without net gain. I'm absolutely amazed at the volume of legal claims of malpractice occupying legal space in the US. Additionally, I live in a province where I have the option of two tier care (quebec). But, despite my ability to afford either option, I've so far fulfilled all of my healthcare needs in the public system. Don't get me wrong, when I get old and paranoid, I'll likely spend the dough for a next-day MRI . Until then I'll suffer the 4 day wait to see my doctor. Or, if I'm in a rush, I'll go to a walk-in clinic where I can see a doctor within an hour.

The doctor drain is so yesterday's news. http://www.pnhp.org/news/2005/august/more_doctors_returni.php http://www.chsrf.ca/mythbusters/pdf/myth29_e.pdf

You're right, it's not about me, which was kind of my point. Nor is it about... you. I would love for you to show me evidence that people with disabilities have a better quality of life in the US than in Canada. If there are things that my country can learn to make things better, I want to know! Of course, until you do, I'm going to stick to my non-nationalist pose and admit that our respective countries are more alike than different on these kinds of issues.

Yup, looking back over the past week, every single building I accessed was either setup to accommodate the disabled or universally accessible. I did have a brief conversation with some dude from LA while I was in belize last month, who was complaining because his landlord grandmother was being sued for having a bunch of buildings that were not accessible to the disabled. Apparently, one guy is having a field day launching lawsuits in LA because there are so many buildings in contravention to accessibility rules. My conversation mate called it a 'scam', wondering how his grandmother and all of these honest hard-working landlords were supposed to know better. Clearly the accessibility message is not in the public eye, in at least some areas of the US. FTR, i think it's pretty shitty to use vulnerable peoples' struggles as a foundation for a my-daddy-is-better-than-your-daddy calibre debate. Both countries are doing comparatively well in accommodating people with disabilties. But both countries could also do more.

Same for me. I'm a toronto born-and-raised anglo who now lives in québec. My son is embraced in french school and I live with linguistically accommodating people. I wish more canadians had the opportunity to experience this... maybe they'd be less resentful.

Canada is a middle power that exercises diplomacy through partnership. This includes the UN, the commonwealth, la francophonie, NATO, NORAD, etc. I'm not sure why la francophonie need be singled out as a poor enterprise. They do as much good as the commonwealth, and we do as much good through it.

The matter of contradictory evidence is easy to find if you google. There are inconsistencies throughout the narrative of that night. The most notable matter is that he was not alone at the time of the grenade throw, despite earlier claims, making it quite possible that he wasn't responsible. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/02/25/khadr-opposition.html But what if he did? Had he been killed by soldiers or air personnel during the battle, would we have charged those responsible with murder? This was a theater of war. I don't have any affection for this family, but we are talking about a child soldier and international agreements respecting this should be respected.

He may not be worthy of our affection, but he was born here and he retains canadian citizenship. Who can claim he's not canadian?

There hasn't yet been any official word on whether or not charges would be laid. We are all only speculating. That said, let's forget the fact that primary eye witness accounts fail at pretty much every stage of the event retelling (including respecting their own physical positions related to the target). What would you charge him with? This happened on a battlefield in another country. Canada hasn't yet forsaken the geneva convention, so we don't have grounds on which to lay charges. At worst, Khadr killed a soldier in a theater of war. This was only my second post here, so I'm not sure what comparison is being made when asking me to be 'as vocal' on this point. Compared to what?

The evidence against him is circumstantial. Even the eye witness testimony has contradicted itself. There would not be grounds to lay charges in a place where the assumption of innocence existed. This is compounded by the fact that, even if he did kill the soldier in question, this is a reasonable target in a war theater. I agree that his mother and father were responsible for placing him in that environment and that his mother should be charged with child abuse.

He's a politician serving within a representative democracy. The only bravery I expect from him is the courage to respect the voice of the people and act accordingly.